If we had such a forum, then we wouldn’t need it.
See, this is the sort of thing I don’t like. The reason he got banned was “because we don’t like him”.
The board can of course have whatever rules it wants, but I feel it is important to point out that rules which are that arbitrary are not really rules. Instead, the “jerk rule” is basically a disclaimer that gives the staff an out to ban someone that they don’t like (or that doesn’t like them).
No, the reason he got banned is because he did nothing but bitch about the mods.
Silverstreak interrupted several threads with off-topic complaints and posted ONLY complaints for the last several weeks.
OTOH, ivn1188, you are still posting.
I think it would be more accurate to say that he got banned because he didn’t like us. And insisted on telling us so at every opportunity.
Now let’s be honest, Silverstreak was a useless twat. That being said, he was banned for no specific rule-breaking but for being a jerk? Just so I am clear on this…
For being a jerk who had provided no contribution to the board beyond complaints and deliberate misunderstanding of staff posts and who gave every indication that as long as he posted, here, he would continue to provide no contributions other than complaints.
Being a jerk IS rule-breaking.
I’m still curious to see who will be banned for the ultimate as **TubaDiva **pointed out:
The one supreme rule higher than the “Don’t be a Jerk Rule”
I hadn’t even realized that that rule was still there…
So has anyone ever Died by Whim officially?
Is the bolded part a specific rule? Or is this under the purvue of don’t be a jerk?
Agreed one hundred percent
[nitpick]purview[/nitpick]
Take what tomndebb said as a description of his main version of jerkiness. The actual, official reason for banning was “being a jerk.”
If we banned posters by Whim, this place would look like Tunguska :eek:
Even that is preferable to banning by Wham!, which would require the mods to wear 80s Big Hair wigs and sing Wake Me Up Before You Go Go prior to clicking the button.
Again, I’m not trying to be obtuse, but the main description of “jerkiness” is
?
ETA: qualifier: at least according to Tom. ALso, if this is Tom’s interpretation, do others have different interpretations?
There are all kinds of ways of being a jerk – nonstop bitching about the way he was treated, paired with a refusal to learn the basics of life around here (e.g., what happens in which forum), was the way Silverstreak chose.
OK cool. So what I am hearing is that there really isn’t a solid definition of “being a jerk” but we know it when we see it? (Kinda like Ed Meese and porn.:p) Therefore we don’t need someone to break an actual rule that is written down in stone, they just need to… be a jerk, right?
You got it.
Excellent. Do warnings follow the same guideline?
When a mod issues a warning, he or she specifies the rule that person broke, such as “being a jerk,” “threadshitting,” “personal insults,” or “ignoring a moderator’s instructions.” This information is sent via PM to the person getting the warning; the moderator usually also posts in the thread, quoting the problematic post, indicating that the person got a warning, and specifying what the grounds of the warning were.
In short, yes, warnings are subject to the same rules (which is what I meant to say)?